Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey

Perceptions of Federal Public Servants Who Are Members of an Employment Equity Group

GCDoc # 14025810

Candidate for Open Government

Table of Contents

Highlights

This report is based on results from the second cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey (SNPS), which was conducted over 9 weeks from March 16 to May 14, 2021. It follows the 2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey: Highlights Report published in March 2022 and a thematic report on the Perceptions of Federal Public Servants with Disabilities published in November 2022. For information on the previous iteration’s results, please consult the following reports:

The 2021 SNPS used Statistics Canada’s Disability Screening Questionnaire (DSQ), which introduced complexities in the interpretation of the results, but allowed for a more detailed analysis of the perceptions of persons with disabilities on staffing. As such, a separate thematic report on the perceptions of persons with disabilities was published in November 2022.

This report focuses on the perceptions of women, members of visible minorities and Indigenous peoples. For each of the employment equity groups, results are compared with their counterparts (See Annex for definitions of counterparts).

Views across all demographic groups on merit, fairness and transparency have improved since 2018. However, it is important to note that in 2018, a 5-point scale was used for response categories for some questions as opposed to the 4-point scale used in 2021. Despite these methodological changes, results were positive overall; however, some gaps remain for Indigenous peoples and members of visible minorities.

Introduction

About the survey

The Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey was first introduced in 2018 as a survey conducted biennially and addressed to all employees in the federal public service subject to the Public Service Employment Act. The survey targeted employees, hiring managers and staffing advisors to gather their views on a wide range of staffing-related topics, including perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency, organizational staffing policies and practices, and awareness of rights and responsibilities related to political activities and non-partisanship. In 2021, questions were added regarding staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic. A copy of the survey questionnaire is available on Statistics Canada’s website.

In total, 75 federal departments and agencies participated in the survey, with 75,440 employee responses received, representing an overall response rate of 34.2%.

The information gathered in the survey was used to:

Thematic Report on Persons with Disabilities

The 2021 SNPS used Statistics Canada’s Disability Screening Questionnaire (DSQ), which looks at types and severity of disabilities through a series of questions to identify the functional limitations of respondents as a means to determine if they have a disability or not. Inclusion of the DSQ in the 2021 SNPS allowed the Public Service Commission (PSC) to conduct more detailed analysis of the perceptions of persons with disabilities on staffing according to severity and impact of limitations.

Therefore, a separate thematic report has been created for federal public servants with disabilities to provide a more thorough analysis. A copy of the thematic report is available on the Open Government Portal.

Background

Public Service Commission of Canada’s mandate

The Public Service Employment Act states that Canada will continue to benefit from a public service that is representative of Canada’s diversity. The Public Service Commission promotes and safeguards a representative public service with merit-based appointments and, in collaboration with other stakeholders, protects the non-partisan nature of the public service.

Under the Employment Equity Act, the Public Service Commission of Canada has, as part of its mandate, obligations to:

Objectives of this report

Using findings from the 2021 SNPS, this analysis seeks to:

Merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing process

This section presents a summary of responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness, and transparency in the staffing process. Within each theme, results are presented for each employment equity group. Results for members of an employment equity group are compared to those of their respective counterparts. This section also provides an intersectional analysis by employment equity group and gender. Results have also been collected on the subgroups for members of visible minorities and Indigenous employees (see Appendix 3, Tables 18 to 33). When making comparisons throughout the report, differences are statistically significant, unless noted otherwise.

Merit

Respondents’ perceptions of merit in staffing processes are assessed mainly through the following questions:

Women were more likely than men to believe that their work unit hired people who could do the job (86.0% versus 82.2%) (see Table 1). Women were also more likely than men to believe that newly appointed employees were a good fit (88.4% versus 86.5%), and that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled (86.4% versus 82.4%).

Members of visible minorities had slightly less positive perceptions of merit in the staffing process compared with their counterparts. Among members of visible minorities, 83.2% agreed that their work unit hired people who could do the job versus 84.5% for their counterparts.  Meanwhile, 86.6% of visible minorities agreed that newly appointed employees were a good fit compared with 87.7% of their counterparts. Finally, 82.6% of visible minorities agreed that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled compared with 84.9% for their counterparts.

Results for Indigenous employees followed a similar pattern with 76.5% believing that their work unit hired people who could do the job (versus 84.5% for their counterparts), while 81.2% agreed that newly appointed employees were a good fit (versus 87.8%), and 78.0% said that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled (versus 84.8%).

Table 1 Employees' perceptions of merit in the staffing process, by employment group
Questions related to merit Women Men Members of visible minorities Counterparts
of visible minorities		 Indigenous peoples Counterparts of Indigenous peoples
We hire people who can do the job 86.0% 82.2% 83.2% 84.5% 76.5% 84.5%
Newly appointed employees are a good fit within my work unit 88.4% 86.5% 86.6% 87.7% 81.2% 87.8%
Advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled 86.4% 82.4% 82.6% 84.9% 78.0% 84.8%

Indigenous women were more likely than Indigenous men to believe that their work unit hired people who could do the job (80.2% versus 71.6%) (see Table 2). Indigenous women were also more likely to believe that newly appointed employees were a good fit within their work unit compared to Indigenous men (83.3% versus 78.5%; gap is not statistically significant); however, they were less likely to believe this compared to women who did not identify as Indigenous (83.3% versus 88.7%) (see Table 3). Women who identified as members of visible minorities had a similar gap in perceptions when compared with women who did not identify as members of visible minorities on this statement (86.4% versus 88.8%).

Indigenous women also had more positive views than Indigenous men that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled (82.2% versus 72.8%); however, their views were less positive when compared to women who did not identify as Indigenous (82.2% versus 86.7%) (see Table 4). This gap is also observed for women who are visible minorities compared with women who did not identify as members of visible minorities (83.2% versus 87.1%) for this statement.

Table 2 Employees who agreed that people hired could do the job: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 80.2% 71.6% 76.5%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 86.3% 82.7% 84.5%
Members of visible minorities 83.7% 83.0% 83.2%
Counterparts of visible minorities 86.5% 82.2% 84.5%
All employees 86.0% 82.2% 84.1%

 

Table 3 Employees who agreed that newly appointed employees were a good fit within their work unit: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 83.3% 78.5% 81.2%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 88.7% 87.0% 87.8%
Members of visible minorities 86.4% 86.9% 86.6%
Counterparts of visible minorities 88.8% 86.6% 87.7%
All employees 88.4% 86.5% 87.4%

 

Table 4 Employees who agreed that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 82.2% 72.8% 78.0%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 86.7% 82.9% 84.8%
Members of visible minorities 83.2% 82.2% 82.6%
Counterparts of visible minorities 87.1% 82.6% 84.9%
All employees 86.4% 82.4% 84.4%

Perceptions of merit varied among visible minority subgroups. Latin American and Korean employees were the most likely to believe that people hired within their work unit could do the job (87.9% and 86.4% respectively) (See Appendix 3, Table 18) and that newly appointed employees were a good fit within their work unit (88.5% for both) (see Appendix 3, Table 20). Latin American and Korean employees consistently expressed more positive perceptions of merit in the staffing system than employees who are not members of visible minorities. Visible minority employees who identified as members of other visible minority sub-groups (employees who did not select one of the options provided), Japanese and South Asian employees had the lowest perceptions regarding merit in the staffing process (see Appendix 3, Tables 18, 20 and 22). Perceptions of merit for Indigenous subgroups were similar to each other, and not substantially different from the overall Indigenous group (see Appendix 3, Tables 19, 21 and 23).

Fairness

Respondents’ perceptions of fairness in staffing processes are assessed mainly through the following questions:

Women were slightly more likely than men to believe that appointments were done fairly (78.4% versus 76.6%). However, 47.8% of women compared to 46.7% of men believed that appointments depend on who you know.

Employees who identified as members of visible minorities were less likely than their counterparts to believe that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly (73.8% versus 78.3%), and they were more likely to believe that appointments depend on who you know (56.1% versus 45.8%).

Results for Indigenous employees followed a similar pattern with 68.8% agreeing that the process for selecting a person for a position is done fairly (versus 77.9% for their counterparts), and 52.8% believed that appointments depend on who you know (versus 47.2% for their counterparts) (see Table 5).

Table 5 Employees' perceptions of fairness in the staffing process, by employment equity group
Questions related to fairness Women Men Members of visible minorities Counterparts of visible minorities Indigenous peoples Counterparts of Indigenous peoples
Appointments do not depend on who you know (see note 1) 52.2% 53.3% 43.9% 54.2% 47.2% 52.8%
Process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly 78.4% 76.6% 73.8% 78.3% 68.8% 77.9%

Note 1: This question was reverse coded.

Perceptions that appointments depend on who you know were more prevalent for women who are Indigenous and women who are visible minorities compared with women who did not identify as Indigenous or as members of visible minorities, respectively (see Table 6).

Among Indigenous women, 71.3% of employees believed that the process for selecting a person for a position was done fairly, whereas 65.9% of Indigenous men agreed with this statement (see Table 7). However, the difference between Indigenous women and Indigenous men is not statistically significant. Indigenous women were less likely to agree with this statement than non-Indigenous women (71.3% versus 78.8%). A similar gap is observed on this statement for women who are members of visible minorities compared with women who are not members of visible minorities (74.2% versus 79.3%). In addition, 74.2% of women who are visible minorities reported that the process for selecting a person was done fairly.

Table 6 Employees who agreed that appointments do not depend on who you know: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 47.6% 47.1% 47.2%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 52.4% 53.6% 52.8%
Members of visible minorities 43.5% 44.5% 43.9%
Counterparts of visible minorities 53.8% 55.0% 54.2%
All employees 52.2% 53.3% 52.6%

 

Table 7 Employees who agreed that the process of selecting a person for a position was done fairly: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 71.3% 65.9% 68.8%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 78.8% 77.2% 77.9%
Members of visible minorities 74.2% 73.6% 73.8%
Counterparts of visible minorities 79.3% 77.4% 78.3%
All employees 78.4% 76.6% 77.4%

Perceptions varied among the visible minority subgroups regarding the fairness of the staffing process. Black public servants (65.1%) were the least likely to believe that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly among the visible minority subgroups (see Appendix 3, Table 24). In comparison, Chinese, Latin American and Filipino employees (approximately 80% each) were most likely to agree with this statement. When asked whether appointments depend on who you know, 51.1% of Latin American employees agreed with this statement, meanwhile approximately 60% of Black and Southeast Asian employees agreed (see Appendix 3, Table 26). Among Indigenous subgroups, Inuit employees were more likely to believe this statement compared with First Nations employees (59.6% versus 50.6%) (see Appendix 3, Table 27).

Transparency

Respondents’ perceptions of transparency in staffing processes are assessed mainly through the following questions:

Both members of visible minorities and women had similar views to their counterparts regarding how job opportunities were communicated during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 8). Indigenous employees, on the other hand, were less likely than their counterparts to agree with this statement (62.6% versus 70.8%).

Members of visible minorities (70.5%) and women (72.3%) had similar results to their respective counterparts (71.7% and 70.5% respectively) on the extent they believed that their managers kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit. Indigenous employees, however, were less likely than their counterparts to believe this statement (63.1% versus 71.8%).

Members of visible minorities and Indigenous peoples had slightly less positive perceptions compared with their respective counterparts regarding the transparency of staffing activities. Among visible minorities, 69.8% said that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (versus 72.4%) while 65.6% of Indigenous peoples agreed (versus 72.2%). Meanwhile, 72.4% of women agreed that staffing activities were carried out in a transparent way (versus 71.6%).

Table 8 Employees' perceptions of transparency in the staffing process, by employment equity group
Questions related to transparency Women Men Members of visible minorities Counterparts of visible minorities Indigenous peoples Counterparts of Indigenous peoples
Job opportunities were well communicated in my organization during the COVID-19 pandemic 71.1% 69.9% 69.6% 70.8% 62.6% 70.8%
Staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way 72.4% 71.6% 69.8% 72.4% 65.6% 72.2%
Manager keeps me informed of staffing decisions involving work unit 72.3% 70.5% 70.5% 71.7% 63.1% 71.8%

Indigenous women were more likely than Indigenous men to agree that job opportunities were well communicated in their organization (65.8% versus 58.0%) (see Table 9). However, they were less likely to agree to this statement when compared with women who did not identify as Indigenous (65.8% versus 71.4%). A smaller gap exists between women who are members of visible minorities and women who did not identify as members of visible minorities (68.9% versus 71.6%).

Indigenous women were less likely than non-Indigenous women to report that staffing activities were carried out in a transparent way (68.2% versus 72.6%) (see Table 10). For Indigenous men, 62.4% of employees agreed with the same statement, though the difference with Indigenous women is not statistically significant. Meanwhile, women who are members of visible minorities also had less positive perceptions regarding the transparency of staffing activities compared with women who did not identify as members of visible minorities (68.5% versus 73.3%).

Indigenous women were less likely to report that their manager kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit when compared with women who did not identify as Indigenous (63.7% versus 72.8%) (see Table 11). Meanwhile, women who are members of visible minorities had slightly less positive perceptions on this question than women who did not identify as members of visible minorities (70.3% versus 72.7%).

Table 9 Employees who agreed that job opportunities were well communicated in their organization during the COVID-19 pandemic: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 65.8% 58.0% 62.6%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 71.4% 70.5% 70.8%
Members of visible minorities 68.9% 70.6% 69.6%
Counterparts of visible minorities 71.6% 70.0% 70.8%
All employees 71.1% 69.9% 70.4%

 

Table 10 Employees who agreed that staffing activities were carried out in a transparent way: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 68.2% 62.4% 65.6%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 72.6% 72.1% 72.2%
Members of visible minorities 68.5% 71.6% 69.8%
Counterparts of visible minorities 73.3% 71.7% 72.4%
All employees 72.4% 71.6% 71.8%

 

Table 11 Employees who agreed that their manager kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Employees Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 63.7% 62.5% 63.1%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 72.8% 70.9% 71.8%
Members of visible minorities 70.3% 70.9% 70.5%
Counterparts of visible minorities 72.7% 70.6% 71.7%
All employees 72.3% 70.5% 71.3%

Perceptions of transparency varied among visible minority subgroups. Filipino and Latin American employees were most likely to agree that job opportunities were well communicated in their organization during the COVID-19 pandemic (74.9% and 72.3% respectively) and that staffing activities were carried out in a transparent way (74.5% and 75.9% respectively). Employees who identified as South Asian, Black, or members of other groups were the least likely to agree with these statements (see Appendix 3, Tables 28 and 30). Perceptions of transparency in the staffing system were similar across Indigenous subgroups (within 3% for all questions) (see Appendix 3, Tables 29, 31 and 33).

Hiring Managers

In general, hiring managers expressed confidence in their organization’s ability to recruit the staff needed to carry out day-to-day operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some slight differences exist between the views of managers who belong to an employment equity group and those who do not, though most differences are not statistically significant. Data on hiring managers by visible minority sub-group leads to small numbers, which are not conducive to statistically significant results. Results for hiring managers are therefore only provided at the aggregate level.

About two thirds (66.9%) of Indigenous women managers agreed that they could hire the staff needed to address the COVID-19 response, while 78.6% agreed that they could hire the staff needed for day-to-day operations. For women managers who are members of visible minorities, the results were 70.1% versus 78.1%, respectively. The views of hiring managers who identified as women and members of visible minorities regarding their ability to recruit staff to address the COVID-19 response were similar to those of men who are members of visible minorities (70.1% versus 69.9%). Finally, despite the gap between the views of Indigenous women and Indigenous men (66.9% versus 59.3%), the difference was not statistically significant.

Hiring managers across all demographic groups expressed confidence regarding the use of virtual interviews to evaluate candidates efficiently when conducting staffing processes (positive results were over 90% for most demographic groups) (see Table 14). However, there was a pronounced gap between hiring managers who identified as Indigenous women and to those who identified as Indigenous men (91.0% versus 77.6%). Hiring managers across all demographic groups agreed that the performance of newly hired candidates met the expectations of the position for which they were hired (over 90% for all demographic groups) (see Table 15). Hiring managers, regardless of their employment equity status, expressed feeling comfortable explaining staffing decisions to their employees (over 90% for all demographic groups) (see Table 16).

A large majority of hiring managers indicated that they did not feel pressured to select a particular candidate (more than 80% for all demographic groups) (see Table 17). However, Indigenous women managers were the least likely to say that they did not feel pressure to select a particular candidate (82.4% versus 88.7% for women hiring managers who did not identify as Indigenous).

Table 12 Hiring managers who agreed that they were able to recruit the staff needed to carry out day-to-day operations during the COVID-19 pandemic: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Managers Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 78.6% 74.6% 76.4%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 80.0% 79.0% 79.5%
Members of visible minorities 78.1% 79.7% 78.9%
Counterparts of visible minorities 80.2% 78.7% 79.4%
All hiring managers 80.0% 78.8% 79.2%

 

Table 13 Hiring managers who agreed that they were able to recruit the staff needed to address the COVID-19 response: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of managers Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 66.9% 59.3% 62.5%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 71.0% 69.1% 70.0%
Members of visible minorities 70.1% 69.9% 69.9%
Counterparts of visible minorities 70.7% 68.5% 69.5%
All hiring managers 70.7% 68.6% 69.4%

 

Table 14 Hiring managers agreeing that the use of virtual interviews allowed them to evaluate candidates efficiently when conducting staffing processes: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Managers Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 91.0% 77.6% 85.2%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 93.5% 88.5% 90.9%
Members of visible minorities 93.4% 88.9% 91.2%
Counterparts of visible minorities 93.4% 88.0% 90.7%
All hiring managers 93.4% 88.1% 90.6%

 

Table 15 Hiring managers who agreed that the appointees met the performance expectations of the positions for which they were hired: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Managers Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 92.7% 92.2% 92.2%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 95.9% 95.8% 95.8%
Members of visible minorities 94.0% 93.4% 93.7%
Counterparts of visible minorities 96.0% 95.8% 95.9%
All hiring managers 95.7% 95.6% 95.5%

 

Table 16 Hiring managers indicating they felt comfortable explaining staffing decisions to their employees: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups
Category of Managers Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 94.3% 90.8% 92.6%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 95.1% 94.4% 94.7%
Members of visible minorities 94.8% 93.3% 94.1%
Counterparts of visible minorities 95.1% 94.5% 94.7%
All hiring managers 95.0% 94.3% 94.6%

 

Table 17 Hiring managers who agreed that they did not feel pressure to select a particular candidate: Intersection of gender and other employment equity groups (see note 1)
Category of Managers Women Men Total
Indigenous peoples 82.4% 85.1% 83.3%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 88.7% 89.7% 89.1%
Members of visible minorities 85.8% 87.9% 86.7%
Counterparts of visible minorities 88.8% 89.9% 89.3%
All hiring managers 88.4% 89.5% 88.8%

Note 1: This question was reverse coded.

Conclusion

This report provides a summary of the 2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey’s key results for women, members of visible minorities and Indigenous peoples (please consult the 2021 Staffing and Non Partisanship Survey: Perceptions of Federal Public Servants with Disabilities Report for results on persons with disabilities).

Overall, the results are positive. However, some gaps remain. In particular, Indigenous peoples and members of visible minorities expressed less positive perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing process than employees who are not members of these respective employment equity groups. Perceptions varied between the subgroups of visible minorities. Latin American and Korean employees often expressed more positive perceptions than counterparts of visible minorities. Black employees had the least positive perceptions on questions related to fairness among all visible minority subgroups. However, their perceptions of merit, and transparency in the staffing process were similar or slightly lower than other visible minority subgroups. For Indigenous employees, results were similar across subgroups.

The survey also found that hiring managers, regardless of their employment equity status, expressed confidence in their organizations’ ability to recruit needed staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Public Service Commission of Canada encourages federal public service organizations to use these results to influence their employment systems, policies and practices to address the gaps identified in this report as they may be indicative of biases or barriers to persons who are members of employment equity groups.

For more information, the 2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey results can be explored using the 2021 SNPS Data Visualization Tool or by using the newly designed SNPS Pivot Table which allows organizations to explore their own 2021 SNPS results for specific socio-demographic categories.  In addition, the 2021 SNPS Dashboard provides 2021 SNPS results on merit, fairness, transparency and other staffing-related topics in the Federal Public Service . Finally, comprehensive datasets can be found on the Open Government portal.

Appendix 1: Definitions of Employment Equity Groups for the SNPS

Women

Respondents for the 2021 SNPS were asked about their gender, in which they could select “Male”, “Female”, “Other” and “Not Stated”. As such, women in the following report are all respondents who selected “Female” in the survey.

Visible minorities

Persons, other than Indigenous peoples, who do not identify as white. The 2021 SNPS asked respondents to self-identify with a detailed list of options to ensure all sub-groups in the Federal Public Service are also represented.

Indigenous peoples

Persons who identified as First Nations, Inuit or Métis.

Counterparts

Counterparts to an employment equity group are all other employees who do not belong to that respective group. Members of visible minorities were compared to employees who did not identify as members of visible minorities, and Indigenous peoples were compared to employees who did not identify as Indigenous. Women were compared to men.

“Other gender” category

The “other gender” category is made up of respondents who selected “other” as their gender. For the purposes of this report, gender analysis was restricted to respondents who indicated their gender as male or female. Perceptions of respondents who are part of the other gender category are reflected in overall results (totals), but an analysis of “other gender” as a group was not undertaken because of its heterogenous nature. A broken down analysis of “other gender” by its sub-categories was also not made available in this report as there are too few data points to ensure confidentiality and to allow for statistically significant results.

“Other groups” as part of the visible minority subgroups

Respondents who were classified as “Other groups” are members of visible minorities who did not identify as members of any of the subgroups listed.

Appendix 2: Methodology

For this report, results from the 2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey for persons who are members of an employment equity group have been compared by employment equity status and gender. Results for members of visible minorities and Indigenous peoples were compared to results of their counterparts (employees who are not members of those respective employment equity groups). Results for women were compared to results for men. Furthermore, this report provides an intersectional analysis by combining gender with Indigenous and visible minority status respectively.

The 2021 survey response rate is 34.2% and the results are weighted to account for non-response and are therefore considered representative of the 234 757 federal public servants who fall under the Public Service Employment Act Data collection took place over 9 weeks, between March 16, 2021, and May 14, 2021. For questions about their past experience, respondents were asked to refer to the previous 12 months, from March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021.

The 2021 survey frequently uses response categories that ask respondents the extent to which they agree with the question based on a 4-point scale:

Respondents who agreed “to a moderate extent” or “to a great extent” with a statement were considered to have given a positive response.  In the rare exception where a question is asked negatively, respondents who agreed “to a minimal extent” or “not at all” for a given statement made up the positive responses. 

For statistical comparison purposes, the bootstrap estimates provided by Statistics Canada were used to obtain valid variance estimates to develop confidence intervals and/or hypotheses tests. Bootstrap is generally useful for estimating the distribution of a statistic such as variance estimation of a mean. This allows the researcher to make statistical comparisons between two or more population parameters. Many of Statistics Canada’s surveys provide bootstrap weights, which can be used by researchers to generate consistent estimates of population parameters, and sampling variances that account for sample design.

Appendix 3: Subgroups for Visible Minorities and Indigenous peoples

Table 18 Employees who agreed that people hired could do the job, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Latin American 87.9%
Korean 86.4%
Southeast Asian 85.2%
Arab 85.1%
Filipino 84.6%
Chinese 84.1%
West Asian 83.4%
Black 82.7%
Japanese 80.1%
South Asian 79.0%
Other groups 75.8%
Members of visible minorities 83.2%
Counterparts of visible minorities 84.5%

 

Table 19 Employees who agreed that people hired could do the job, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
Métis 76.7%
First Nations 76.3%
Inuit 76.0%
Indigenous peoples 76.5%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 84.5%

 

Table 20 Employees who agreed that newly appointed employees were a good fit within their work unit, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Latin American 88.5%
Korean 88.5%
Arab 87.2%
Black 86.8%
Filipino 86.8%
Southeast Asian 86.8%
Chinese 86.5%
West Asian 85.1%
South Asian 84.7%
Japanese 84.0%
Other groups 82.0%
Members of visible minorities 86.6%
Counterparts of visible minorities 87.7%

 

Table 21 Employees who agreed that newly appointed employees were a good fit within their work unit, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
First Nations 81.5%
Métis 80.8%
Inuit 79.0%
Indigenous peoples 81.2%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 87.8%

 

Table 22 Employees who agreed that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Latin American 86.0%
Filipino 85.7%
Korean 85.2%
Chinese 85.2%
Arab 84.6%
West Asian 83.4%
Southeast Asian 81.8%
Black 79.7%
South Asian 78.9%
Japanese 78.4%
Other groups 77.3%
Members of visible minorities 82.6%
Counterparts of visible minorities 84.9%

 

Table 23 Employees who agreed that advertised job requirements reflected those of the position to be filled, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
Inuit 78.4%
First Nations 77.8%
Métis 77.8%
Indigenous peoples 78.0%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 84.8%

 

Table 24 Employees who agreed that the process of selecting a person for a position was done fairly, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Filipino 79.9%
Chinese 79.5%
Latin American 79.4%
Southeast Asian 78.2%
Korean 76.8%
Arab 75.7%
Japanese 72.9%
West Asian 71.8%
South Asian 71.5%
Other groups 69.1%
Black 65.1%
Members of visible minorities 73.8%
Counterparts of visible minorities 78.3%

 

Table 25 Employees' perceptions on the extent the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
Inuit 73.8%
First Nations 68.8%
Métis 68.4%
Indigenous peoples 68.8%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 77.9%

 

Table 26 Employees who agreed that appointments do not depend on who you know, by visible minority subgroups (see note 1)
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Latin American 48.9%
Arab 47.4%
Other groups 46.1%
Chinese 45.4%
South Asian 44.9%
Filipino 44.8%
Korean 43.4%
West Asian 43.4%
Japanese 40.8%
Southeast Asian 39.8%
 Black 39.7%
Members of visible minorities 43.9%
Counterparts of visible minorities 54.2%

Note 1: this question was reverse coded.

Table 27 Employees who agreed that appointments do not depend on who you know, by Indigenous subgroups (see note 1)
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
First Nations 49.4%
Métis 46.0%
Inuit 40.4%
Indigenous peoples 47.2%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 52.8%

Note 1: this question was reverse coded.

Table 28 Employees who agreed that staffing activities were carried out in a transparent way, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Latin American 75.9%
Filipino 74.5%
Arab 73.1%
Southeast Asian 72.9%
Chinese 72.7%
West Asian 69.0%
Korean 66.9%
Japanese 65.5%
South Asian 65.5%
Black 64.8%
Other groups 62.7%
Members of visible minorities 69.8%
Counterparts of visible minorities 72.4%

 

Table 29 Employees who agreed that staffing activities were carried out in a transparent way, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
Inuit 67.3%
Métis 66.3%
First Nations 64.8%
Indigenous peoples 65.6%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 72.2%

 

Table 30 Employees who agreed that job opportunities were well communicated in their organization during the COVID-19 pandemic, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Filipino 74.9%
Latin American 72.3%
Chinese 71.9%
Arab 71.6%
West Asian 70.4%
Korean 69.9%
Southeast Asian 68.7%
Black 67.8%
Japanese 65.3%
South Asian 64.8%
Other groups 61.4%
Members of visible minorities 69.6%
Counterparts of visible minorities 70.8%

 

Table 31 Employees who agreed that job opportunities were well communicated in their organization during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
First Nations 63.5%
Métis 62.2%
Inuit 60.8%
Indigenous peoples 62.6%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 70.8%

 

Table 32 Employees who agreed that their manager kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit, by visible minority subgroups
Category of employees Members of the visible minority subgroup
Chinese 74.1%
Southeast Asian 73.8%
Filipino 73.2%
Arab 72.3%
Korean 70.4%
Latin American 69.5%
West Asian 69.3%
South Asian 69.0%
Black 66.1%
Japanese 65.7%
Other groups 65.1%
Members of visible minorities 70.5%
Counterparts of visible minorities 71.7%

 

Table 33 Employees who agreed that their manager kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit, by Indigenous subgroups
Category of employees Members of the Indigenous subgroup
Inuit 64.6%
Métis 63.4%
First Nations 62.5%
Indigenous peoples 63.1%
Counterparts of Indigenous peoples 71.8%

Page details

Date modified: